Inconsistent treatment estimates from mis-specified logistic regression analyses of randomized trials.
نویسندگان
چکیده
When the difference between treatments in a clinical trial is estimated by a difference in means, then it is well known that randomization ensures unbiassed estimation, even if no account is taken of important baseline covariates. However, when the treatment effect is assessed by other summaries, for example by an odds ratio if the outcome is binary, then bias can arise if some covariates are omitted, regardless of the use of randomization for treatment allocation or the size of the trial. We present accurate closed-form approximations for this asymptotic bias when important normally distributed covariates are omitted from a logistic regression. We compare this approximation with ones in the literature and derive more convenient forms for some of these existing results. The expressions give insight into the form of the bias, which simulations show is usable for distributions other than the normal. The key result applies even when there are additional binary covariates in the model.
منابع مشابه
Covariate adjustment in randomized trials with binary outcomes: targeted maximum likelihood estimation.
Covariate adjustment using linear models for continuous outcomes in randomized trials has been shown to increase efficiency and power over the unadjusted method in estimating the marginal effect of treatment. However, for binary outcomes, investigators generally rely on the unadjusted estimate as the literature indicates that covariate-adjusted estimates based on the logistic regression models ...
متن کاملUsing Log-linear and Logistic Regression for Inferences on Adjusted Estimates of Relative Risk in Randomized Comparative Trials
Randomized comparative trials are often used to assess the relative merits of two or more interventions aimed at having beneficial effects on the incidence of categorical outcomes. In simple applications chisquare tests can be used to analyze contrasts among proportions of incident events or risk ratios (relative risks). However, assessment of intervention differences may be obscured by outcome...
متن کاملAssociation of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?
CONTEXT Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions. OBJECTIVE To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events. DESIGN Observational study of 370 randomized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews selected from the Cochrane Library, ...
متن کاملEffect of Risk of Bias on the Effect Size of Meta-Analytic Estimates in Randomized Controlled Trials in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry
BACKGROUND Risk of bias (ROB) may threaten the internal validity of a clinical trial by distorting the magnitude of treatment effect estimates, although some conflicting information on this assumption exists. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was evaluate the effect of ROB on the magnitude of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology and implant d...
متن کاملSubgroup Analysis of Trials Is Rarely Easy (SATIRE): a study protocol for a systematic review to characterize the analysis, reporting, and claim of subgroup effects in randomized trials
BACKGROUND Subgroup analyses in randomized trials examine whether effects of interventions differ between subgroups of study populations according to characteristics of patients or interventions. However, findings from subgroup analyses may be misleading, potentially resulting in suboptimal clinical and health decision making. Few studies have investigated the reporting and conduct of subgroup ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- Statistics in medicine
دوره 34 19 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2015